A Little Night Tennis, Anyone?

Despite Attempts to Limit Long Matches, They May Not be Such a Bad Thing

ENLARGE

Roger Federer of Switzerland serves to Ivan Dodig of Croatia during the BNP Paribas Open at Indian Wells, Calif., on Monday.
Getty Images

By

Tom Perrotta

Updated March 14, 2013 11:14 p.m. ET

Men's tennis epics have become routine in recent years. We've seen a nearly six-hour Grand Slam final at the Australian Open in 2012 and in 2009,
Roger Federer
and Andy Roddick—two men known for playing like they're trying to catch a flight—played a four-hour, 16-minute final at Wimbledon, home of the shortest points in tennis.

Then, of course, there was the 11-hour, five-minute circus act, performed over three days, by John Isner and Nicolas Mahut at Wimbledon in 2010. It required 183 games.

So, a serious question: Is this such a bad thing? Many in tennis seem to think so, and their concerns will be aired again after another long day (and night) in tennis history, this time at the
BNP Paribas
Open in Indian Wells, Calif.

Here's how Wednesday's day session played out. First Kevin Anderson beat Gilles Simon in three sets. Then Maria Kirilenko came back to beat Petra Kvitova in three sets. Roger Federer struggled against Stanislas Wawrinka but prevailed (also in three sets). Then came Rafael Nadal, who ended the 13-match winning streak of Ernests Gulbis—yes, that's right, also in three sets.

And so the night session, which featured
Maria Sharapova
and world No. 1 Novak Djokovic, began after 10 p.m., rather than 7 p.m. as scheduled. Sharapova won a tight first set and then hurried along in the second, leaving Djokovic and his opponent, Sam Querrey, to take the court after midnight.

Djokovic finished off Querrey at about 10 minutes shy of 2 a.m. and although it's nothing compared with the Australian Open day(s) in 2008 when Lleyton Hewitt beat Marcos Baghdatis at 4:34 a.m., it's still impressive considering none of these matches was best-of-five-sets.

Modern tennis—we can now conclude, based on heaps and heaps of evidence—takes awhile. The men's tour is concerned enough about this that it modified the rule governing time between points so umpires could strictly enforce it. Some continue to call for a shot clock, mandatory tiebreakers in fifth sets (the U.S. Open is the only Slam that does this) and playing service lets (if a serve hits the net and goes in the correct box, it counts).

According to the Los Angeles Times, Billie Jean King supports no-ad scoring to speed things along—meaning that at deuce, the winner of the next point would win the game. The no-ad system is used in King's World Team Tennis competition, and the ATP is experimenting with no lets on serves in Challenger events, a sign that they may bring it to pro events in the future.

But all this worry could be misplaced. On one hand, almost everyone in the game agrees that this era is golden, and certainly among the best periods the sport has ever known. And perhaps the high point of the Federer-Nadal rivalry (renewed for the 29th installment on Thursday evening) was their 2008 Wimbledon final, which took four hours and 48 minutes.

There have been scores of other mind-boggling matches, all of them long, on every surface and in cities all over the world. The sport's most prestigious events continue to brag about improved ticket sales and sponsorships. Prize money is up, and increasing at a faster pace. So the concern is what, exactly?

One feels for the night-session ticketholders in Indian Wells Wednesday, but that's more a problem of scheduling than tennis. After what everyone has witnessed the past seven years or so, it's not wise, to put it kindly, to schedule three men's matches and two women's matches for an eight-hour period (11 a.m. to 7 p.m.) and expect to finish on time. The simple solution to Wednesday's long day session is fewer matches on one court, not shorter ones.

Players are divided along predictable lines on the question of time. The faster ones, like Federer, are in favor of the strict enforcement of the rules. The slower ones, like Nadal, are not. This week, he called the new 25-second time rule—which applies only to ATP events, not the Grand Slams—"a disaster," not so much in dry climates like the Indian Wells desert, where he is playing a bit more quickly than usual, but in hot, humid places, like Australia and the U.S. in summer.

"The rules go against the great points of tennis," Nadal said. "The best points of the season are long rallies and amazing points. With this 25 seconds, you play a long rally and you think you can play another long rally next point? No."

Nadal's not quite right to call the rule a disaster, at least not yet. If a player takes longer than 25 seconds, he receives a warning. If he does it again, he forfeits a first serve and must hit a second serve. The penalty is lighter than in past years—a second offense used to result in the loss of a point—with the hope being that umpires will actually enforce it. If the modified rule speeds play a little and doesn't interfere with the outcome, perhaps it's a good thing.

But one could also see Nadal's point against Gulbis. Late in the second set, with Nadal serving at 4-6, 4-3—up a break of serve but down a set—the two engaged in the best point of the night. It lasted 19 strokes in all and sent both men scurrying left, right, left, right.

Gulbis ran 66 meters, according to a graphic on TennisTV.com. Nadal ran 50. Both men were breathing heavily and sweating. Nadal lined up to serve, bounced the ball…and was given a time violation warning (27 seconds had passed).

Nadal, who had gone past 25 seconds after another long point in the first set, with no warning, ignored it. After another 10 seconds, he sliced an ace for 30-0.

Was a masterful point worth a subsequent 12-second delay? It's difficult to argue against that. In one way, the delay was even helpful: It allowed time for a television instant replay, a closer look at another bit of modern tennis magic. It's not hard to choose those moments over a gimmick like a shot clock. If there's one thing tennis hasn't needed in the past few years, it's a countdown to when the fun is over.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.